Rating: 
Summary: A Wonderful Analysis of Anti-Governmentalism
Review: Garry Wills has written a book that will probably come as close to his book on Catholicism for upsetting many readers and, hopefully, enlightening many more. A Necessary Evil (A History of American Distrust of Government) is a book that begins slow but picks up glorious momentum as it glides along. The author has truly created an all-encompassing look at the factors creating and the results stemming from anti-governmentalism that sometimes feels a little too broad-ranging in its topics but interesting enough through of all this added weight. It should make the reader look at their attitudes a little closer as well as challenging many of the assumptions easily held concerning icons such as Jefferson, Madison (particularly fascinating) and Thoreau, to name but a few of the sacred cows served for lunch in this book. The author is most fervent and interesting when attacking fellow academics who hold and ennoble many of the anti-governmental views thoroughly taken apart in this book. The ending is great and potently timely with its assailing government for its secrecy. A wonderful book that should get people talking.
Rating:
Summary: An Analitical Overview
Review: Gary Wills provides us with a panoramic overview of the constitution and some events in American History. This book will probably not be received well by the NRA or its supporters but should be read, and contemplated, by all. Starting with the framers of the constitution and their intent as derived from their writings and debates outside of the written constitution and covering people and events right up to the abortion clinic bombings this book sheds another outlook on these events and the meaning behind them. Read this with an open mind. Compare it to what you believe and make an educated choice on what to think. You should always be exposed to opposite points of view in order to make an educated choice. Do not accept what people tell you, you sould research and decide. This is an important book that should be read, discussed, and contemplated. Buy it, and get the brain cells moving.
Rating: 
Summary: Not history, more like fantasy
Review: I don't know where Wills studied history, but he didn't study American History. He has no clue as to what the Constitution says or of the founding fathers reasoning for the document they created. States WERE sovereign. Prior to the Constitution, each state acted as independent nations. The Second Amendment IS an individual right. If you have any doubt as to what the Second Amendment means, in 1991, Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of "American Usage and Style: The Consensus", panel member of the American Heritage Dictionary, and and is considered an expert by Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary, analyzed the wording of the Second Amendment. In his findings, he stated "The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence. The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional. To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: 'Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'"
Rating:
Summary: Not history, more like fantasy
Review: I don't know where Wills studied history, but he didn't study American History. He has no clue as to what the Constitution says or of the founding fathers reasoning for the document they created. States WERE sovereign. Prior to the Constitution, each state acted as independent nations. The Second Amendment IS an individual right. If you have any doubt as to what the Second Amendment means, in 1991, Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of "American Usage and Style: The Consensus", panel member of the American Heritage Dictionary, and and is considered an expert by Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary, analyzed the wording of the Second Amendment. In his findings, he stated "The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence. The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional. To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: 'Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'"
Rating: 
Summary: A Necessary Evil
Review: The best aspect of this book is the reason it had to be written - mainly, to counteract the insistent rhetoric of the Far Right and the tacit approval of those in this country who label themselves as Conservative. The notion that our government is an evil entity out to restrict our rights and freedoms is, of course, nothing more than legendary bunk, yet it's amazing how many people mouth such beliefs without any real substantiation. Wills basically addresses this issue by providing a bookful of facts and history about all aspects of our nations growth and development. It will never convince die-hard militia members, but reasonable and patriotic people will find this 'truth' to be a breath of fresh air.
Rating: 
Summary: A muddled book on an important topic
Review: The book has some decent historical merit, but by coming down far on the pro-government side he ignores and misreads several key issues and people. Not helping his case against the militia/pro-gun argument is his citing of the discredited Michael Bellesilles, once thought of as the savior of the left and now accused of fabricating evidence. Additionally, the chapter 'A Necessary Good' is disastrous. The man conflates the existence of a division of labor (economic, not political) and of social norms and restrictions(social, not political) with the *necessity* and benficience of the state! By not proving that these can and would exist without a powerful state, he traps himself into a terribly fallacious argument. It reveals so much of the intellectual poverty of those who seek to glorify an organization whose roots and claims to legitimacy stem solely from force.
Rating:
Summary: An extended straw man argument
Review: This book really tells us more about Wills the man than it does any particular political philosophy. He portrays any sort of dissent or skepticism of government as hatred; written, as it was, during the Clinton years, it appears that Wills is trying to write an indirect defense of the various abuses of power of the Clinton administration while not actually mentioning anyone by name. The book is, in the end, a extended diatribe against those individuals and organizations Wills disagrees with, and a defense of a kind of my-government-write-or-wrong jingoism that Wills might not be so quick to endorse in a different political climate. It's hard- or impossible- to imagine Wills having written this book back in the Nixon administration. Wills is a very bright man, but too often descends into sophistry to give his predjudices the appearance of reasoned argument, and this book is no different.
Rating: 
Summary: Excellent book on US history, politics, and dissent
Review: This is a fantastic book. Wills does a great job in discussing the general theories of the different steps people take when they disagree with government policy or action, with a number of pertinent examples. Wills is excellent when discussing the beliefs of the American revolutionaries (which, he reminds us, were not revolting but seceding), and how those beliefs led to the Articles of Confederation and Constitution. Reading this book will enlighten the reader to the archetypal forms of actions taken when people disagree with the government -- information, and even guidelines, that are highly relevant today. He has particularly interesting insights on Thoreau, Martin Luther King Jr., and the Second Amendment.
Yet at times Wills goes overboard in proving several of his viewpoints. A major theme of the book is that Jackson, Webster and Lincoln were not only militarily, but logically and Constitutionally, correct in asserting that the South was wrong to secede. Wills claims that the South's argument for secession was limited to an assertion of the southern states' rights under their states' prior sovereignty. He then asserts that since the Union preceded the states, that the states were never sovereign.
Wills is right that the Constitution gives superior authority to the federal government, but he omits that colonies of identical name and geography to the succeeding states were there long before the Union, and those colonies formed states which confederated into Articles of Confederation government. Although the Constitution is written in the name of "We the People," it was drafted by state delegations to a convention of the states, and ratified by the states, which comprised the resulting Union. These states' sovereignties is subsumed into the union, which was named the United States -- both the union and the states present.
The South's hypocrisy (in claiming local rights while silencing local dissent), and the execrable reason for its secession (preserving slavery), do not by themselves refute the argument that the South had grounds to secede. What if, alternatively, the six New England states got disgusted with the pro-slavery US and seceded to form a new slave-free country for the best of motives? Would six freedom-loving states choosing to leave a slave-holding country be constitutionally justifiable?
If the Union had just let the South peaceably go, arguably there would have been trade between the US and Confederacy, and perhaps the Confederacy's internal inconsistencies would have caused it to implode, and/or do away with slavery on its own within a few decades. This probably would have eliminated the seething and often violent resentment of the post-bellum South to the North, and possibly have led to a peaceable re-union. Would letting the South go have set such a terrible precedent, since it's unlikely an issue as divisive as slavery would arise and cause later secessions?
While Wills is a great writer and makes many compelling arguments, in some areas his logic falls short.
While making the point that handguns are ineffective when not carefully aimed, as part of a larger debunking of American gun culture, Wills lists as evidence that Samuel Colt designed revolver barrels to remind the user of a finger, and we don't point from belt level, but "with extended arm, our finger at the end of it." Yet, really, most pointing is _not_ done with finger at eye level, like an aimed handgun.
Wills also says he can't understand why some motorcyclists protest mandatory helmet laws since they already accept other restrictions, such as obeying stop signs. Yet those restrictions are of different kinds: stop signs are for the benefit of all, while helmet use arguably protects only the individual. This is not to say that motorcyclists shouldn't be compelled to protect themselves, but we should acknowledge the logical distinctions between the two prohibitions.
There's also a typo where Wills should have said Thoreau expected to be released from jail even though his fine had _not_ been paid, and Wills misquotes the computer card "do not fold, spindle or mutilate" phrase.
In all, it's a very worthwhile book to read.
Rating:
Summary: A Necessary Book
Review: This is one of those books that is certain to irritate people of a certain political bent, especially people to the political right, especially the NRA. Although debunking second amendment myths is only a small part of this book, it is certain to incur the wrath (and one-star reviews) of those who don't want to be told that the bases for their way of thinking are not as strong as they had hoped. Nonetheless, a four star review may be a bit strong for this work. I primarily rate it this way rather than the three to three-and-a-half stars that it merits to counterbalance some of the underservedly harsh reviews that have been previously issued. Although this claims to be a history, this book is actually around 40% history, 40% political science and 20% opinion piece. Where this book deviates from its theme and gets into borderline ranting (even if I may agree with what is being stated), are where the book is mostly flawed. In addition, Willis is a little too dismissive of other points of view; for example, I've read a couple of Akhil Amar's works and - while I don't agree with all of Amar's points - I do feel he presents a strong argument. Nonetheless, this book is an effective way to disprove some of the anti-government myths which are used as ideological foundations for many organizations on both ends of the political spectrum.
Rating:
Summary: Unnecessary Fodder
Review: To believe the contrived revisionist history of of Wills' "A Necessary Evil" is to believe this nation was founded on the ideals of Bentham, Marx, and Clinton, instead of Locke, Adam Smith, and Thomas Paine. This utterly unbelieveable and untrue account of the birth of this nation gives new meaning to the saying "the devil can quote scripture for his purpose too." This book is simply leftist fodder from a "historian" who refuses to step back and see the big picture. While supporters of the leviathan state will stand up and cheer, true Americans will cringe at the thought of a government restrained only by its imagination. Wills would do well to read the Federalist papers and the 10th Amendment before advocating the idea that this nation's founding principal was government without restrictions.
|
